- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:40:59 -0600
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org, jena-devel <jena-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 17:21 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] > A better approach would be, in the words quoted in your spec, to: > [[ > [use] the discussion of the "application/postscript" type [...] as a > model for considering other [...] remote execution capabilities. > ]] > > as an appendix to this comment, I attempt precisely that, and offer that > as a first draft of text that would address this comment. Thanks for the detailed suggestion; I'd start pasting it in, but it conflicts with a WG decision, so I'll need to get the WG in the loop. > I note that the text from RFC 2046 appears to have normative force, but > "should" and "may" have their usual English meanings, rather than the > precise definitions of RFC 2119. My preference is that advice to > implementers concerning security should be normative. The WG decided not to have any conformance labels. http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-conformance-labels For example, your suggested text uses "GRDDL processor" where the editors have agreed on "GRDDL-aware agent" http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-scenarios/#GRDDLAwareAgent and the WG has agreed not to use it as a conformance label. This looks like sufficient new information to re-consider that decision, to me. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 17:41:09 UTC